Comments on: L.A. Times: Our Mistake in Repeating the Imminent Threat Canard Is “Not Correctable”

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 04:32:30 +0000

Did you write the letter?

[Yes. I say so in the post. -- Patterico]

By: Bruce Rheinstein

Bruce Rheinstein — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:47:49 +0000

The context of Bush’s State of the Union Address was the issue addressed in the editorial. Moreover, it was in that speech that he set out his reason for going to war despite the threat not being imminent — the very reason he was accused of waging an “illegal war.”

Moreover, it was clear at the time we were going to war over a potential, not imminent, threat. There were no warships steaming to Pearl Harbor. The Iraqi Army was not massed accross the border for an invasion. There was no serious assertion that Saddam had active plans, rather than potential, to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. targets.

The claim the administration sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat is a lie — a damnable falsehood — that ignores both what the President said, and the grounds his detractors used to declare the war illegal.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:45:30 +0000

Bruce, I don’t really think it’s fair to equate the context of one paragraph of Bush’s speech with the rest of the Bush administration’s obvious, multi-faceted attempts to construct the “imminent threat” of Iraq in the public sphere.

But maybe that’s just me…

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:15:30 +0000

Why do I suspect that, should you submit that letter, the editorial board will justify not publishing it on the grounds that objecting to the writer directly misinterpreting the President’s comment is a claim of factual error?

By: Bruce Rheinstein

Bruce Rheinstein — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:27:05 +0000

Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler addressed the same issue back on 1/25/04 and determined, “Whether the word ‘imminent’ was used seems like a quibble.”

So there you have it. If they spell your name wrong, they’ll gladly correct the “factual error” and pat themselves on the back for their honesty in doing so. If they change the gist of the President’s argument from we must act before a threat is imminent, to the threat is imminent, and then beat that straw man to death, they’ll claim it is either quibbling or “it is not correctable” if you point out the error.

By: ras

ras — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:07:01 +0000

Some dogs just can’t be trained.

By: kent

kent — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:23:36 +0000

The response is blatantly dishonest; Orwellian double speak that they should be ashamed of. Instead it shows the distain they have for their readers.

By: PRESTOPUNDIT

PRESTOPUNDIT — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:52:10 +0000

PATTERICO — LA Times says it’s ed-page error is
“Not Correctable”: As I read this [response from the "Reader's Rep"], the position of the editors is that, as long as you don�t directly quote someone, you can claim…

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:55:32 +0000

So the L.A. Times will gladly run letters that contain factual errors, they just won’t run letters that expose them. Lovely.

By: Boman

Boman — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:50:05 +0000

“We will not be corrected”, sniffed the High Potentate.